Reading mode: Light Dark

lens for the ZOO

Go to last post
H

Hendrik123

Senior Member
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
8
i like to take photos at the ZOO..i do have canon 7D with the kit lens 28-135 and 50mm 1.4 .

can you please suggest a good lens for the ZOO?

thank you
 
A fast telephoto.

70-200/2.8 should work fine, IS might be helpful.

Fast primes would be the best choice if money was not an issue. Shallow DOF and nice bokeh, that is what you need. Focal length depends on your intentions, you might want to take a lion, his head or his eye...

--
Marek
http://galerie.kolas.cz/
 
I use the 70-200mm f/2.8L with and without 1.4x TC as well as the 400mm f/5.6L but it really depends on how close you can get. If I could take only one lens it would be the former with the TC.
Hendrik123 said:
i like to take photos at the ZOO..i do have canon 7D with the kit lens 28-135 and 50mm 1.4 .

can you please suggest a good lens for the ZOO?

thank you
Click to expand...
 
70-200 f/4L IS + a 1.4x TC. I use the f/2.8 version of the lens and it works well for the zoo. The wider f/2.8 aperture is not really needed and the IS really helps IMO.

Best regards,
Doug
--
http://pbase.com/dougj
 
Another expensive "zoo" lens besides the 70-200 is the 100-400mm.

If you don't to go expensive I would suggest the 75-300mm. What price range do you have in mind?
--
Chris

 
I recently spent a few hours at the Houston Zoo with my 7D and the 70-300 IS USM. I left my 70-200/2.8 L IS USM in the trunk. That was based on weight because I was also carrying my Sony A700 with 28-75/2.8 mounted. I'd like to try it again with my 7D and 70-200 just for comparison.

OF course the 70-300 is under your price range and the 70-200 is above it. The 70-200/4 IS would be a reasonable compromise.

If you want to see my pics, they are all at http://www.alphaphotogallery.com/Houston%20Zoo%2011-25-09/ .
--
Gary

 
70-200 f/4 IS, with 1.4 II TC. It's much lighter than the f/2.8 version and the 100-400L (which one review calls the perfect zoo lens) is also heavy.

If you're riding a tram around the zoo, heavy is OK. If you're walking the f/4 would be my choice.

--
Phil .. Canon EOS 7D, 40D; G11, SD700IS; Panasonic ZS3/TZ7
http://www.pbase.com/phil_wheeler
http://philwheeler.net
 
I don't know about your zoo, but in mine, the 70-200 range generally isn't quite long enough. I was at ours this past summer and while I got lots of great shots, there were lots I really needed to crop because I didn't have enough reach.

Our zoo also has pavillions where the lighting isn't the best. You will need 2.8 or faster lenses for those types of places (or 3200+ ISO@ f4). Primes are great for the light they let in but in the pavillions I needed a bit more flexibility. Outdoors the lighting is usually fine for any lense.

On my last trip to the zoo I took my 70-200 2.8 IS, the 24-70 2.8 and the 85 1.8. The 85 didn't get much use if I recall, the 70-200 was used the most (but I need to get a TC). Come to think of it, I should have taken my 70--300 DO for outdoor stuff).
Hendrik123 said:
i like to take photos at the ZOO..i do have canon 7D with the kit lens 28-135 and 50mm 1.4 .

can you please suggest a good lens for the ZOO?

thank you
Click to expand...
 
Just get a 55-250 IS.

It should be fine during the day!

How often do you go to the zoo?

I have a 70-200 f/4 IS and it, too, is nice, but it will cost you. I have a Family membership at my local zoo, and I guess I'm tired of bringing my 70-200. I just throw my 55-250 IS in my pocket, which provides adequate snapshots if I need telezoom. Zoo animals don't run fast if you are worried about focusing.

Now, if you intend to sell your pics, or have plans for other shoots (sports, portraits) then go for the "L's."

I don't think a prime is good fo zoos. They're very limiting.

I'd use the rest of the money you plan to spend on a lens you would use more often like a 17-55 IS. I don't have one, but I do use a 17-50 Tammy, and at times I wish I had IS.
 
I recently went my local Zoo to take some photos with my new 7D. I have yet to invest in a nice telephoto zoom lens like the ones that have already been suggested. Personally if I had the money (which I do not) I would invest in the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM lens. However I did not have this lens when I went to the Zoo and had to settle with my first telephoto zoom the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III that I got with my first DSLR the rebel XS. Now I have been able to get some great shots with this cheap lens. But if you are on a budget and just need a good telephoto zoom lens to go out and shoot with than I would recommend the EF-S
55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS.
Here is the link to some of the photos I got at the Zoo with my cheap 75-300.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eternalphotography/sets/72157622993451962/

I believe it is not so much the glass you use but the skill of the photographer and of course the 7D rocks!

Casey
 
PC, I'm 55 yrs old and I carry around neck the 50D and 100-400mm with no problem. Also the 400mm focal length is needed at the Zoo.
 
I am thinking of adding a long zoom lens (7D) for occasional hobby use at the local Wild Foul Trust, of which I am a member. I don't want to spend more than £500. I've been comparing the two following lenses (no money for "Ls"):

Canon EF 75-300mm F/4.0-5.6 USM III (£125)
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM Lens (£392)

My instinct was to buy the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM Lens, because it is three times more expensive and surely must be better, but when I compared the two lenses here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=358&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=3&LensComp=237&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=4&API=3

I was amazed to find that the much cheaper lens appeared to be much sharper. Can anybody confirm this?
 
First choice is - if you can swing a bit more, the 100-400 is a killer zoo lens. The 50mm will be your indoor lens there. While a 70-200 is quite sharp you may find 200mm awfully restrictive depending on your zoo setup. Good range, good sharpness and light enough to hand-hold (espeecially with IS). This is the best option if you'd like to add animals in the wild to your shooting. 300mm and 200mm lenses are a bit short for that work.

the 70-200 f4IS is a fantastic choice because it would be useful in so many other aspects and it's one of the sharpest zoom lenses (if not the sharpest) on the market. But again, the 200mm will be a bit restricting.

A 1.4x TC could be a good addition to that package and keep you right around your $1400 upper limit.

This combo would be best if you weren't going to shoot animals in the wild and you'd have a killer telephoto zoom for portrait or general photography use.

I've seen some nice Bigma shots but it's a bit heavy and the lack of IS can be restrictive - with many zoo enclosures you're not going to have great light a lot of times so you could be looking at some low shutter speeds which would require you using a monopod with the Bigma.

The next option would likely be the 70-300 IS USM. Good range and good IQ. For zoo work you don't really need the ring USM of the 70-200 or 100-400 L lenses.
 
Yes I read this. I simply could not believe they were taken with such a cheap lens. I would be extremely happy to achieve something of that standard. What is obvious, of course, is that you are a very skilled photographer, but are you saying that the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS would give you even better results?
cmphotos said:
But if you are on a budget and just need a good telephoto zoom lens to go out and shoot with than I would recommend the EF-S
55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS.
Here is the link to some of the photos I got at the Zoo with my cheap 75-300.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eternalphotography/sets/72157622993451962/

I believe it is not so much the glass you use but the skill of the photographer and of course the 7D rocks!

Casey
Click to expand...
 
Yorko said:
I am thinking of adding a long zoom lens (7D) for occasional hobby use at the local Wild Foul Trust, of which I am a member. I don't want to spend more than £500. I've been comparing the two following lenses (no money for "Ls"):

Canon EF 75-300mm F/4.0-5.6 USM III (£125)
Click to expand...
Forget the 75-300 - not very good - even for the price.
Yorko said:
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM Lens (£392)
Click to expand...
If you are going to go with a 70-300 range lense, this is a better value.
Yorko said:
My instinct was to buy the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM Lens, because it is three times more expensive and surely must be better, but when I compared the two lenses here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=358&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=3&LensComp=237&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=4&API=3

I was amazed to find that the much cheaper lens appeared to be much sharper. Can anybody confirm this?
Click to expand...
Most reports I have read indicated the reverse. Now, the initial 70-300's did have some issues which canon corrected. It is hardly a perfect lense but everything I have seen indicates it is better than the 75-300 in every way.
 
The canon 70-300is is excellent for the zoo. Inexpensive too!
Hendrik123 said:
i like to take photos at the ZOO..i do have canon 7D with the kit lens 28-135 and 50mm 1.4 .

can you please suggest a good lens for the ZOO?

thank you
Click to expand...
--
Fred
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top